LI Network
Published on: February 5, 2024 at 14:19 IST
The Telangana High Court emphasized that being a lawyer alone is insufficient, and petitioners filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) must provide their antecedents.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, urged petitioners to demonstrate their credentials and commitment to public service.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with two PILs, deeming them to be more suited for civil remedies. One case involved a land dispute, while the other sought to ensure the implementation of a biometric system in law schools.
Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), the Telangana High Court highlighted the need for PIL petitioners to explicitly state in their affidavits that they have no personal or private interest in the matter.
The Court criticized lawyers for invoking the powers of public interest for what it considered frivolous causes.
The bench reminded lawyers of the original purpose of PIL jurisdiction, which is to provide remedies to society at large when individuals are unable to approach the court.
It urged lawyers to offer sound advice to genuinely aggrieved clients, suggesting that civil suits might be more appropriate for certain disputes.
The Court called on lawyers to approach the appropriate authorities for the enforcement of their rights instead of filing PILs for matters better suited to civil litigation.